I think the older discs were mainly Profile 5, where the enhancement layer includes both quarter-scale video and metadata. x265 doesn't support that. Newer discs would be Profile 5, where the enhancement layer is just RPU metadata. But that requires a properly "shaped" base layer specific to the source and metadata, which is Y'CtCp and dynamically adjusts to the currently-used subset of the PQ curve for greater precision.

If you rely on a specific setting that strongly, you should not rely on it being the default, and just specify it. Or as an alternative, not blindly update your encode pipeline without verifying that it still produces expected results.
For the record, the default was changed from 1 to 2, not the other way around.

If you rely on a specific setting that strongly, you should not rely on it being the default, and just specify it. Or as an alternative, not blindly update your encode pipeline without verifying that it still produces expected results.
For the record, the default was changed from 1 to 2, not the other way around.

That's the reason why I have a long string of options in the command line even if most of them are the defaults of a specific preset.

__________________And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes
I'll see you on the dark side of the Moon...

And a funny thing is that --no-rskip is supposed to be a default in --preset veryslow (and also --slower) but it's not according to the code. I reported the issue a long time ago but no one fixed it Doesn't matter to me though, I use --rskip all the time anyway.

__________________And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes
I'll see you on the dark side of the Moon...

When --merange grows, the quality increases regardless of the size of --ctu (it may depend on the source movie).

For CPU with only 12 logical cores (6 physical) --ctu 64 is just better in preset slower for 1080p encoding.

I see, thanks for sharing.

I think you are correct, since the biggest benefit of reducing it only appears when going above arround 8C/16T (I was testing with 12/24 and went from 7fps to 11fps cause of the less thread utilization at CTU 64, and I would say that it was definitely was worth the trade off), it does makes since to keep it as an manual setting.

I would say though that it might be worth consideration to lower the merange for those fastets presets, since it doesnt seem to benefit quality that much.

Support for Dolby Vision is announced, and immediately people believe that applications for decoding, possibly even encoding, for consumer PCs are available too ... which is doubtful. I wonder how "homeopathic" its additional features will be in a generic furnished living room, where average people can hardly tell the difference between DD AC3 and dts on a DVD Video, not to mention HD Audio formats.

To me, it seems that supporting such data is mainly for professional content producers. Might be a field where hobbyists can't help the developers much.

Support for Dolby Vision is announced, and immediately people believe that applications for decoding, possibly even encoding, for consumer PCs are available too ... which is doubtful. I wonder how "homeopathic" its additional features will be in a generic furnished living room, where average people can hardly tell the difference between DD AC3 and dts on a DVD Video, not to mention HD Audio formats.

Oh, I'm sure the difference will be noticable to consumers. Simply because authors will make it so, not because it's superior. Just like in the past authors used different mixes for AC3 and DTS tracks on the same DVD. It's all about marketing.

Ok. Did a test. 3840x2160 res., same x265 settings. One with aq-mode 1 crf18 and second aq-mode 2 (which is now new default) with crf16. aq-mode 2 with crf16 still gives lower bitrate. which one "should" be better in terms of detail retention?